Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MARCH 2014

Intellect Wireless v. HTC: Curing Misrepresentations To The PTO

Morrison Foerster
Morrison Foerster
Contributor
Morrison Foerster

Morrison Foerster

With approximately 1,000 lawyers in 19 offices, Morrison & Foerster is a preeminent global law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Morrison Foerster

Affirming a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that its Therasense decision "in no way modified" its previous ruling that "the materiality prong of inequitable conduct is met when an applicant files a false affidavit and fails to cure the misconduct." Slip Op. at 7.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Affirming a finding of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct, the Federal Circuit recently confirmed that its Therasense decision "in no way modified" its previous ruling that "the materiality prong of inequitable conduct is met when an applicant files a false affidavit and fails to cure the misconduct." Slip Op. at 7. The Federal Circuit also found that a "pattern of deceit" makes "the inference stronger" for the intent prong of inequitable conduct. Id. at 10.

Intellect Wireless Inc. ("Intellect") sued HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, HTC), for patent infringement (Intellect Wireless v. HTC, No. 2012-1658 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2013)). Each asserted patent had the same specification, which disclosed providing caller identification (ID) information from a message center to a personal communication device (e.g., a cell phone) via a wireless network, and displaying the caller ID information on the cell phone's screen. Id. at 2. After a bench

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from